Talk:Atlantic salmon

Error in the subspecies

I'm a bit confused with the listing "Critically Endangered - subspecies: aralensis". Not familiar with the classification and a search of it shows up as Salmo trutta aralensis; a subspecies of the brown trout, not Atlantic salmon. Any clarification would be appreciated. (Albini3) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.232.113 (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, of course. I've fixed that. Dave 02:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. I took a minute to note there's a decent article on Browns as well. Interesting fish, though I recall a lake where it was invasive with a few very big survivors keeping down local fishes. --Albini3 12:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

I've regrettably had to refuse the article Good Article status. I felt that, while there was a lot of good, referenced content, it was insufficiently broad, and in places the style fell short of the required level. If this is remedied then Good Article status should not be a problem. My principal concerns were:

• The lead section is too short to give an adequate summary of the article.
• The sections on taxonomy, behaviour and physiology are too brief. The physiology section only talks about colouration.
• There is no real mention of the salmon's predators.
• The section on legal status is patchy - some is irrelevant.
• The use of salmon in cookery is almost entirely absent.
• There is some irrelevancy. For instance, we do not need to know about Linnaues's ennoblement in this article.

Further comments which would aid the article but which are probably nto required for GA status:

• A few more sources wouldn't go amiss
• There are plenty of opportunities to use more photos: e.g. the colouration of salmon at different stages.

I hope these comments are received as helpful feedback, and that you can make the article a Good Article shortly. Regards, The Land 19:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

THe article has a strong North American bias especially in the sections on Hunam Impact and Controversy - the decline in Atlantic salmon in Europe is not mentioned nor the impact of fish-farming on salmon stocks in Scottish & Irish waters. The section on Law in England & Wales is out of date. An author with knowledge of Atlantic Salmon in European is needed Barney Bruchstein (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Extinct or not?

I'm confused a little by this article. It seems to contradict itself. One section says that the Atlantic Salmon went extinct in the waters of New York due to the damming of the Oswego, but another mentions that the fish are now stocked there. There is also a large salmon run yearly in the Oswego now. If the species is still not naturally occuring, but does occur due to manmade means, it seems like it would make sense that the segment saying they are extinct in NY due to the damming should reflect the fact that the fish DO exist there, maybe just not naturally. Perhaps some research into whether the do occur naturally now is merited. --Jo7hs2 8:10, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

I'm not really clear on why you feel this is a contradiction. The animal was extirpated from Lake Ontario in the 19th century. Today, it's being stocked in Lake Ontario and the introduced fish are, at best, reproducing poorly. What part of this is confusing? There is no question that any Atlantic salmon in Lake Ontario today are entirely unrelated to the native strain of fish that "went extinct" over a century ago. Is there some way I can make this clearer for you? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 13:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I no longer feel that it is a contradiction. I do, however, feel that this statement...

"Until the early 1800s, Atlantic salmon were native to the waters of central New York. When dams were constructed on the Oswego River their spawning areas were cut off and they went extinct in the area."

...would be better located in the "Distribution and Habitat" section of the article. I know the reason that they are extinct in that area is that they have been cut off from their spawning areas, which relates to breeding, but the sentence itself speaks more to their range and habitat than to their breeding habits. Jo7hs2 20:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Recreational fishing in US: allowed or prohibited?

How do I reconcile "Recreational fishing of Atlantic salmon is now authorized in much of the US and Canada where it occurs in large numbers..." (last paragraph of section Conservation) with "Commercial and recreational fishing of wild Atlantic salmon is prohibited in the United States." (first paragraph of section Legislation > United States)? MStruzak (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Short answer: the keyword here is 'wild'. And wild Atlantic salmon are most definitely illegal to target in the United States as they are classified as an endangered species. The longer answer: speaking from angling experience in New England, stocked Atlantic salmon are present in many fisheries and do tend to be quite popular targets for recreational anglers. In my home state of Connecticut, hatchery-raised Atlantic salmon from as large as 30"+ are stocked in two rivers each year where they're perfectly legal to target. Likewise, in all Northern New England states where there are lakes cold enough and deep enough to sustain them, Atlantic salmon of hatchery origin can be targeted recreationally (and they'll end up in rivers often, too). Generally, these are places that are virtually inaccessible to anadromous Atlantic salmon, so allowing recreational angling for them is not seen as a meaningful threat to any functional wild, anadromous populations of the species. In stark contrast, rivers where wild, anadromous Atlantic salmon may be found are places where fishing for them is strictly prohibited and they must be returned to the water immediately and without undue harm if accidentally caught. This is the case in Connecticut's Farmington River and it's most certainly the case in Maine's remaining wild salmon rivers, as well.Jgcoleman (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I should further specify that it's not necessarily impossible for Atlantic salmon of hatchery origin to successfully spawn in landlocked environments where they are recreationally pursued. The success rate is generally quite low because landlocked environments rarely provide the necessary habitat parameters, but it probably does happen. So strictly speaking, it's not enough to say that 'wild' Atlantic salmon are off-limits, as wild landlocked Atlantic salmon probably do occur and are as legal to target as landlocked Atlantics raised in a hatchery and stocked afterwards. Instead, it's specifically wild, anadromous Atlantic salmon that are off-limits for angling. In the context of recreational fishing regulations, it's rarely spelled out like that though, because the idea is that by simply restricting recreational angling of Atlantic salmon to these landlocked environments, there's no specimen you could catch there which would be anadromous.Jgcoleman (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation, @Jgcoleman, it all makes more sense now! Would you be willing to tweak the article language to make it clearer? MStruzak (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo of Atlantic Salmon

I'd just like to say that the photo " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Salmo_salar-Atlantic_Salmon-Atlanterhavsparken_Norway.JPG " is actually not an Atlantic salmon but a sea trout. We can tell this because of the number of markings below the lateral line, the eye position in relation to the lower jaw, and lastly the signature square tail. This is yet another major inaccuracy in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.131.77 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Aquaculture | Controversy

Was this section written by Greenpeace? There are no references.

Where have escaped Salmon established in the west coast?

What is with the absurd claim that Atlantic and Pacific Salmon can interbreed, being of different Genus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.146.50 (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Aquaculture section is in serious need of some references. There are false claims being made (specifically with the lowered genetic diversity claim). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.63.71 (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atlantic salmon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100410205501/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/seafood/red-list-of-species to http://www.greenpeace.org/international/seafood/red-list-of-species

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

GMO

It's reported that AquAdvantage's newly FDA-approved GMO fish will be marketed under the name "Atlantic Salmon." I don't know how that should be worked into this article, but it seems to me a significant fact, maybe a point of in-test disambuiguation? http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/11/25/gmo-salmon-costco?cmpid=foodinc-ad-fb-keywee&kwp_0=224583&kwp_4=874087&kwp_1=427274 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.243.112.7 (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Atlantic salmon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.epa.gov/EPA-SPECIES/1998/May/Day-01/e11668.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050625074243/http://www.maine.gov:80/asc/ to http://www.maine.gov/asc/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050713084011/http://www.bio.umass.edu:80/biology/conn.river/salmon.html to http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/salmon.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061125010232/http://www.worldwildlife.org:80/salmon/ to http://www.worldwildlife.org/salmon/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Atlantic salmon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140115064920/http://www.fws.gov/r5crc/Stuff/appc.html to http://www.fws.gov/r5crc/Stuff/appc.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maine.gov/asc/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/salmon.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldwildlife.org/salmon/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atlantic salmon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121144822/http://www.nasco.int/ to http://www.nasco.int/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Reintroduction "success"?

I'm interesting in getting some opinions on how to handle the mention of salmon spawning in Connecticut's Farmington River as an example of success at reintroduction. While it is true that salmon redds (nests) were discovered in the river, and that biologists hadn't had the opportunity to observe such redds in that river in a couple centuries, it's also quite misleading to frame that as "success at reintroduction". Commentary on the find, even from the state agency that discovered the redds, suggest that it's more of a novelty than anything else. None of the specialists believe that it represents any actual success at reintroduction.

“Everybody wants to make this into this wonderful recovery story, this story of rebirth, and it’s not,” says Steve Gephard, a fish biologist for the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. He’s a leading expert on Atlantic salmon in the Connecticut River — and the author of that Facebook post [announcing that the redds were found]. “This has been blown out of proportion,” he says. “Lots of people have made comments … saying, ‘Wow, there’s still hope for Atlantic salmon in the Connecticut River. The restoration is finally showing progress.’ Bullshit. The restoration program has been cancelled.”

Anyhow, my point here is that I didn't want to just delete it... as it's not meaningless that redds were found. In fact, it seems so promising at face value that even if I did delete mention of it, it would probably be added again by someone. That said, I think it's being framed in a misleading way here.

Any thoughts? Should it just be removed for the sake of encyclopedic accuracy? Or should the anecdote be kept, but also be qualified in the same bullet point? Jgcoleman (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Salmo domesticus

Is Salmo domesticus an alternate Latin name for the domestic version of Atlantic salmon? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

That concept would appear to relate back to a single paper published in 1998 in which an aquaculture scientist suggested that domesticated salmon had diverged biologically so much from their wild counterparts as to constitute a different species. I only browsed through the paper, and I'm sure it offers convincing arguments, but recognizing a new species in any formal capacity requires at least some measure of broader consensus in the scientific community. The idea of Salmo domesticus does not appear to have gained any traction in the intervening two decades since this paper was published. A Google search of Salmo domesticus yields several results, but all of them seem to directly lead back to that same singular paper.Jgcoleman (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)